Guest Post: Why I Don't Vote

Democracy has become a religion and anyone who criticises it is labelled a heretic.

How many times have you heard the mantra that ‘if you don’t vote, you can’t complain’? Whereas, actually, the opposite is true, ‘if you do vote, you can’t complain.’ It is no coincidence that the emergence of the philosophical concept of the ‘Social Contract’ runs parallel to democratic development in the modern era.

In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

If you vote and your ‘favoured’ candidate does not win, you have absolutely no right to complain because by voting you have accepted the process and are bound by it’s result. It is not a coincidence either that you are asked to put a cross, also used as a replacement for a signature for a person who is illiterate and thus cannot write their name, next to your choice on the ballot.

The policy differences between different candidates are exagerated. This encourages you to sign the Social Contract by making you believe that you have a real choice. But the choice is an illusion because the true policy differences are slight and 99% of leadership is management, keeping the bureaucratic apparatus of state moving and reacting to events.

For the overwhelming majority it makes little difference which candidate wins any election. Only the wealthy and powerful who can expect some kind of reward, in the form of patronage or largesse, Government contracts etc, for their financial, political, and media support have a dog in the fight.

Your role, by voting, is to legitimise this corruption.

Democracy encourages short-termism. Instead of our leaders planning for a sustainable future they pander to a selfish and fickle electorate who only want jam today and who will punish any politician at the polls who does not give it to them. As a consequence the farsighted, fairminded and responsible leadership that the world needs in the 21st century, is completely absent, made obselete by an evolutionary process which rewards the shortsighted, corrupt, ambitious, greedy, and vain.

This is a genuine story, In 1974 in the UK there were two general election. The first in February was inconclusive and it led to another in October. In the run up to this second election the leaders of all the main political parties made the most extraordinary undeliverable promises to buy the votes of the British electorate.

I was six years old, and attending my local infants school, when the teaching staff there taught me one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learned. They decided to hold their own school election at a special assembly at which all the parents were invited to attend, though only the children would vote. Before the assembly they took myself and a young girl into separate classrooms, to the young girl they explained the needs of the school and what changes would be beneficial to the pupils education,. To me they just gave one simple instruction “Just get elected.”

The young girl addressed the children, parents, and teachers and made a very sensible address, “more books, longer school hours, and a healthy diet”.

I, on the otherhand, decided to stand on a very simple platform of “Chips (fries) everyday, and longer breaktimes.”

The result will come as no surprise, I won by a landslide. As I grew older and began to reflect more on this the lesson became clearer. The electorate will always vote for what they want, rather than what they need. The electorate are no better than a cohort of infant school children.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

Aristotle would have disagreed with Winston Churchill. Aristotle thought that democracy was a perverted form of Government which served the indignant (or capricious) mob at the expense of the broader interests of the state and it’s citizens.

Voting for Libertarianism is oxymoronic. You can not vote for your freedom because the ballot is a signed contract which binds you to a democratic system specifically designed to defraud you of any choice. Only by not voting can you opt out. This does not mean that you will not be subject to the tyranny of the majority but you will be free.

Americans have almost universal access to top quality news outlets, covering ground breaking news stories from all over the world. It is the duty of every American to stay informed about what is going on in the world so they can make intelligent voting decisions. Today I learned that Iran may nuke Israel and America in the next two years without significant intervention by the US military.

2. Vote

It is absolutely inexcusable that so many Americans choose not to vote in the presidential election. Voting decides the futures of thousands of people and it should be a collective decision. Remember, it’s your benefits, your money and your jobs that are on the line. Voting is how we collectively decide how politicians should spend our money, and it is crucial that we pool together our collective wisdom to ensure that we pick the best politicians for the job.

Also, now that the economy is picking up and people are thinking about how to invest in the global recovery, econimic updates on CNN and MSNBC are becoming increasingly important. These outlets give regular updates on the economy, jobs and the stock market to keep average Americans up to date with the news on the street. With such a wealth of quality financial news outlets available to Americans, there really is no excuse not to stay informed about the economy.

Actually, I love this guy. It's like this: if you could listen to the stuff floating around in Blankfein's mind about all you little muppets, this is exactly what it would sound like. Quite perceptive, really.

You know what? Not voting also leaves you with a pile of dog crap. While I'm not advocating voting, it would be nice if there was a better solution to the problem. Out of all the rights I am losing, I'm least worried about my right to complain.

I feel ya. It's always "consumer" this and "consumer" that. It's like I'm just a number. And the return on an investment? Yeah, there's some vulgarity for ya. Or Ben's CTRL-P gang sign - yep, you guessed - vulgarity.

Well, technically you're correct but a republic is usually legitimized by a Constitution. Unfortunately because this document has been thouroughly been trashed in recent years I suppose the US is closer to a fascist corporate form of government .

Sketch,, if you don't know he is joking, satirizing,.. MDB is really quite gifted, he offers his satire in a dead pan style, and he fools a lot of literalists. Go, Go, MDB you are a breath of fresh air!

The news is so riddled with bold faced lies that only a fool would believe what the news says. For example, we had a recent set of headlines where candidate A claims candidate B said "X". Fact check will quote candidate B saying X and then conclude, much to any thinking persons astonishment, that candidate A was lying. And, then an army of major news outlets point to fact check article to validate that the candidate of their choice was the victim of a lie.

I'm not going to go so far as to say people shouldn't vote, but if you really believe that it is just and fair to vote on how much money you extract from other people and how you spend other people's money, then you have just illustrated what is wrong with our current form of government.

However, I don't believe voting is signing a social contract. It is acting on the only choices given. Failing to vote against the things you oppose is as much signing the social contract is as voting.

"Failing to vote against the things you oppose is as much signing the social contract is as voting."

I think you missed the point here. Voting for anyone running for office (even Gary Johnson) is voting (consenting) for someone to govern you. I object to willfully consenting to be governed. I know I must deal with the government regardless, and live within it's laws, but I'm not going to say "thank you sir, may I have another? Left cheek this time, please!"

The British have little claim on representative government in that their very existence has depended on the military power of the United States.

On this eve of American elections, we’ve been treated to a consistent injection of Israeli meddling, a government defined as socialist by Benjamin Netanyahu, and now, this offer to share in further socialism from the UK.

I turned off the satellite dish many months ago and haven't hooked up an antenna yet, so I get no news except via the internet. So, I screwed up and voted for Rocky Anderson instead of Obamney or Rombama. I have failed as a citizen...er...I mean consumer. I may have a stay at a FEMA camp in my future. After all it is the duty of an ill-informed citiz...er...consumer to report to such a camp for reprogramming if they miss their daily indoctrinations. Thank you for the reminder.

"It is the duty of every American to stay informed about what is going on in the world so they can make intelligent voting decisions."

And since the vast majority of them DON'T or watch what they THINK is a balanced view of the world, but isn't, you end up with a majority of uninformed or misinformed people. As a result, my one vote is like pissing in the ocean.

Guess what? The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. That's the choice we were left with this year, as always. I will not vote given that non-choice, especially where we have 2 political crime syndicates, the dims and the repugs, both of which are merely bought and paid for whores for corporate America. Both of these cretins running this year (not that it's different from any other year) are merely stooges for Big insolvent criminal banks, Big oil, Big arms merchants, Big pharma and Big puppet media. That's a CHOICE? Bullfuckingshit.

Still, they are existing choices. And writing-in an unregistered individual at the very least counts as spoiling a ballot in protest.

As unlikely as it may be in reality to make any noticeable difference, you have to admit that such acts are potentially more likely to effect change than merely sitting on one's backside squeezing blackheads; and so should be considered an essential part of any protest regimen.

Don't have any blackheads and I spent years being more active politically than most people have probably ever been in their lives (former LP party officer in a highly populated county). As much of a waste of f'ing time as pissing into the vast American ocean of ignorance.

Vote Gary Johnson. About half the country does NOT have electronic voting w/o paper trail. Vote while you still can. Not voting makes it easier to put Obama back in since many registered Repub to vote for Paul in the primary. It raises eyebrows if there is a high Repub turnout but the Dem wins. Romney is horrendous and I'd never support him but Obama has proven he will do whatever the establishment wants.

If GJ gets 5% the Libertarians will qualify as a major party and the establishment will have a harder time silencing them.

My Mom is a big time republican from Texas. I told her the other day that anyone watching Fox or MSNBC is mostly misinformed. She said she watches CNN too to get the non-biased story (srsly). It's nearly impossible to explain reality to anyone that is so entrenched in their paradigm. She thinks my views are off the wall. She thinks our military in afghanistan and iraq are there protecting us. She thinks killing a million people is just part of war but claims to be a christian. She thinks Romney is going to lead the country out of this shit storm we are in. She can't remember what a shitty president GWB was. She has no idea what propaganda is, yet she forwards it to me all of the time. I'd say she is the norm from the republicans I talk to.

Ditto. But this year with Horton hatching a NY hedge funder, there is a glimmer of WTF. I try to explain the rational to them, that Rmoney was chosen to keep disillusioned democrats in fear and towing the party line, that any honest attempt at victory by the right would have combined third party forces and died in the wool R's with RP. No, this is about protecting the central bank. This election, more than any other I've seen, the curtains are becoming broadly translucent.

"This election, more than any other I've seen, the curtains are becoming broadly translucent."

But not even close to transparent enough for the vast majority meaning, at this rate, it will be far too late before a significant number wake up. The only thing that will change this Honey Boo Boo on The LEARNING Channel country is an economic collapse. And considering the vast levels of ignorance and stupidity, the change won't necessarily be for the better.

Self deception is a normal protection mechanism for dealing with uncomfortable issues.

If we are "good" and they are "bad" then killing them isn't really such a bad thing. Sure we might kill some kids, but they would grow up to be "bad" anyways. Or their parents should have overthrown the terrible regime that was in power and threatening us.

If you actually sat down and looked at all the admitted places we are killing people and those vast secret war actions we are taking all over the world ever single day there would be no other conclusion than WE are not what we believe ourselves to be.

Just like the Germans did not see themselves as bad, nor probably the communist leaders in the USSR.

Amerikans are extremely easy to lead astray. They have the mental focus of a 10 year old and they aren't really sure of the difference between right and wrong...but THEY VOTE. So politicians must cater to the 12 year old mentalitiy if they want to be elected.

Free stuff...beat up all the bad people, and make the world love you or else. Its almost too easy. A 10 year old really could be president of the US.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country"

- Edward Bernays

I don't agree that a ten-year-old could be POTUS. POTUS is essential as the talking-head of the Bernays System. BUT... at the rate things are becoming more Rome-like perhaps the POTUS position is handed over to one of the oligarch's ten-year-old...

The quote by Edward Bernays is correct. Isn't it interesting that he was a pioneer of modern public relations and propaganda as well as a nephew of Siggy (deep down inside we all want to fuck our mothers or fathers, as the case may be) Freud?

BTW, when I made my comment about a 10 year old president, it was made in jest. In reality, no one really knows how old the current figurehead is because his birth certificate has never been produced. Of course, that is totally irrelevent, as is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Even a 12 year old should be able to grasp that.

Voting is a privilege under the Social Contract. Paying taxes and abiding by laws are obligations under the Social Contract. If one is advancing the argument that, by voting- one legitimizes the corruption of the Social Contract, then he should also advocate a boycott on the paying of taxes and the adherence to law, because by paying taxes and abiding by laws one also legitimizes the corruption of the Social Contract.

The author presents a false dichotomy- there are both third parties and the option to write in a candidate of one's choosing.

By not voting one is merely condoning the tyranny of the majority (of fools) who believe their only options are D or R. Until a significant portion of the electorate DEMANDS other options and EXPRESSES that demand by delivering an undeniably large percentage of the votes actually cast to the alternative candidates, then the electorate (including non participants) is merely providing sanction to the corruption of the Social Contract. Boycotting of the polls is an act of affirmation of the corruption of the Social Contract, not a protest against it.

Throughout the human experience with "democracy"- across a couple hundred years and a couple hundred nations, vote suppression has been a tool of THOSE IN POWER, used to maintain their power.

Because he's right. So many ZH'ers and this guest post are focusing on the Presidential vote, which is what the elite want. Voting should be all about the local level. I can't believe how many fall for the National stage bullshit politics.

Vote for your School board

Vote for your local representatives.

Leave the Presedential check box empty, if it makes your dick hard, but for Christ sake vote for those who actually have an impact on your life.

This argument maybe might have held water prior to the Citizens United Ruling. Now we have fucking gigantic TV ad buys for... local school board. And I live in a relatively smaller city.

Instead of spending time voting, take those few extra hours, earn a bit more money, and then "donate"/quid pro quo that money to a politician in exchange for future considerations. That is the only democracy that functionally exists. Everything else is a total fucking mirage.

Destruction of BAD currencies occur as a result in the loss of confidence. By your logic people should NOT abandon the currency, suck it up and allow it to drain their "wealth." BAD = BAD, PERIOD! The "social contract" can no longer stand because there's no longer the ability to exploit new resources. GROWTH always leads to this point. It's got NOTHING to do with "democracy," "economic policy" etc, and everything to do with the premise of perpetual growth on a finite planet. As long as the social contract is based on endless growth (which requires expansionist policies- exploitation) then it is DOOMED. Buying into this "system" in order to correct it, without addressing the underlying flawed premise is utter insanity.

BTW - "Democracy," in theory, in it's PURE form, cannot scale past 120-something; the US has a Republican form of government, not a "democratic" form of government.

Using "voting" in that sentence would have been more tortured than using "democracy", but my point there was the global, not the US-centric "republicanism" experience with self-determination. Silent and passive protest as means of self-determination is like "new math" ~ utter BS, as it does not interfere with TPTB going on about their business and implementing their designs on society, unlike Ghandi's non-violent, but active and disruptive protests.

I don't see that reducing the voter participation rate to the point to delegitimizing an election as a probable, or even possible outcome of non participation. Whereas the mathematical threshold (and number of people required) for delegitimizing an election by siphoning votes from both the D/R muppets and the non-voter pool to demand new alternatives is lower, and much easier to achieve.

Regardless, ACTIVE protest- whether non-violent or violent, gives voice to and defines a movement. Silent protest is a statistical manipulation, which will be further manipulated by TPTB to serve their own ends against their opposition.

The logic fail on your part is that you can express an active protest of the system by voting for a third party candidate. Consider for a moment the idea of Gary Johnson winning the popular vote and electoral college. That would be pretty exciting, wouldn't it? It would be a giant-killing vote on the scale of Jesse Ventura winning Minnesota. Now consider what he would actually have to do in order to survive a four year term. Think about that for a while, because I seriously doubt you have considered this. Consider how crestfallen the Obama voters were when they discovered, over the course of his presidency, that he has absolutely no control over anything. Amplify that several degrees in regards to a libertarian candidate winning, and somehow still powerless to change course. Imagine the posts right here on this board from the likes of people like George Washington (or you), who still suffer under the false pretense. Stop trying to bend the spoon. There is no spoon.

The system will likely break down long before any third-party candidate is elected to major office, and even has the chance to under-deliver on their ideology. However, the best way to prevent re-imposition of the same evil under a different guise is to begin at the local and state level- installing candidates who do not buy into the D/R bullshit. Silent protest is most likely to result in having NO SEATS AT THE TABLE when the rules are next re-written, and in the interim allows erosion at all three levels of government.

In certain respects primary and off-year elections present better opportunities for a ballot "victory", but long before victory- if a third-party candidate even places second, it undeniably exposes the failure of the existing two-party system. Bending the spoon would be positing that one can go off and sulk in their room, and then after TSHTF- believing anyone is going to accept that they have anything constructive to offer, after their prolonged silence.

There is a tactical game and there is a strategic game, and a third-party candidate "winning an election" isn't actually victory at either level. In the mean time there is an amendment to the Virgina state constitution regarding eminent domain that demands my vote (lest the state have the right to seize the room that a non-voter was planning on sulking in). For all I care someone can literally cast a BLANK BALLOT as a protest vote, but to remain silent is to condone the status quo. One must have an established political party and have already won seats which it can sacrificed for the cause before a boycott becomes a legitimate political statement, until that point a movement is made up of LITERAL losers throwing a tantrum.

I find forcing people to buy insurance or face fiscal penalties is both a social issue and a bullshit issue. If its meant to drive us apart, so be it, its working. I'm not even going to get into the whole oh we should all collectively pay for sally be able to get a free abortion and free birth control bullshit. But those two issues alone are why I'm not voting for Gary Johnson; because he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell and I'm not wasting my vote when we've got a guy in office who is only there because he's a good conman. At least Romney's net worth means he isn't prone to being paid off by the highest bidder. That to me is a huge asset for a politician. Too many are bought and paid for because they're too dam stupid to manage their own finances, let alone the country's.

I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”

“The next time they give you all that civic bullshit about voting, keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election”"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.'"

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."

Spoken like a true indoctrinee. I quit voting years ago when I realized much of what is said so well above. It was a turning point in my life where I realized that if I was going to make anything of myself, it was not going to be by waiting for the world to come to my door. The world doesn't need you (or me). Voting is part of that that passive, "I'll go along to get along" attitude and it doesn't accomplish anything. Be a man and vote with your feet and ignore these idiotic popularity contests and live your life without any shame of not being "civic" because all those civic-minded fools would trample you if food ever gets scarce. It really is the mob and you have to deal with it without coming off as an elitist.

You don't vote and you're intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt. And Sirconflakes is right: quit your whining or fly a plane into a building. Take some ACTION so show that you're not just another 3rd class thinker who has lots of pet peeves but would rather choom and bitch.

"You never change anything by fighting the existing. To change something, build a new model and make the existing obsolete."

- Buckminster Fuller

I'm not here to "show" how pissed off I am, but to advocate for applying energy in a productive fashion, one that's more grounded in reality (abides by nature and physics; more toward sustainability for future generations). Those who need to "prove" something, to "show" something, are, in my opinion, suffering insecurities. But... YES, do take ACTION (though don't waste your energies on fighting the existing).

I have taken YEARS of action in the legal form of political awareness booths, newsletters, etc. for the LP and the level of ignorance hasn't been reduced by one iota. I see it only increasing. I've given up. The F'tards deserve what they get. The entire LP officer corps of my county LP party branch has thrown up their hands and done the same. The forces of ignorance combined with the machines behind the multi-TRILLION dollar taxpayer funds gravy train are too much.

In case you were responding to me (I think not, but just in case)... I KNOW that applying energy toward deprogramming this System is futile and that the best defense is a good offense- do what you think is necessary (and do so by applying energies to what you see should be the "new way" rather than "speaking truth to power" [as Power already knows the truth]).

Again, it's not that people are stupid, it's that the Programming is stupid. People have been programmed to give up their power (Party Pussies and or members of religious flocks). Very few sheep don't get slaughtered: more people need to understand the realities as are quite obvious via the farming/livestock world.

Yeah, I'd spent WAY too much energy trying to deprogram the System. I'm no longer wanting to waste telling others HOW they should live and am instead trying to be an example for those who seek to voluntarily deprogram.

Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. The word "panarchy" was invented and the concept proposed by a Belgianpolitical economist, Paul Émile de Puydt in an article called "Panarchy" published in 1860.[1] The word "panarchy" has since taken on additional, separate meanings, with the word "panarchism" referring to the original definition by de Puydt.[1]

De Puydt, a proponent of laissez-faire economics,[1] wrote that "governmental competition" would allow "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members."[2]

It's a THEORY. Unless everything was forced into one big reset you'd be off and running with Panarchy having a US govt wielding the ability to destroy the world's population many times over. Look around and tell me that a happy world of competing governments could exist.

POWER CORRUPTS. TRUE anarchism is about NO concentration of power. Why I'm not all-in on libertarianism is because it still requires some central power to enforce "property rights," and anything with such power also has the power to KILL YOU DEAD.

I don't mean to pour cold water all over things (I AM FOR diversity), but there will be LOTS of devolution before any such evolution could occur (refer to my first paragraph for why I believe so). Given the divisive programming that has taken place I'm not thinking that after such pain occurs that our collective minds will have evolved, rather, it'll be just on to another round of "the Hatfields and McCoys." Thousands of years of history show how these things go: and clearly we have NOT been able to evolve. Culture, I believe, is necessary, BUT... only for geographic areas, and ONLY for reasons of necessity for survival in one's local environment: pushing further out is no more than trying to spread toward global dominance (same as any NWO).

See that screen door of yours that you refuse to look past? There is an entire planet on the other side of it, honest!

The 'tyranny of democracy', sheesh; you useful idiots really have to reach for it... not to mention constantly ignore that the ostensible purpose of constitutions (common to democratic states) are to mitigate the threat of the mob usurping the rights/freedoms of the individual; and vice versa.

so far 7 people don't like what I've written, yet are incapable of expressing a reason why... I must be on to something.

Just because parts of the world are better off where democracy is practiced while simultaneously respecting constitutional protections for the individual; that doesn't mean you should examine them at all as that might contradict your cynicism.

The point of disparaging voting is not to encourage others to not vote. We all understand that the actual voting process is mostly meaningless. It's the democratic equivalent of participating in communion, a concrete action that makes you feel like something was accomplished. Those who think understand that the bread isn't ACTUALLY magically transformed into the body of christ when it hits your tongue, and the wine doesn't somehow mystically transmute into his blood either. It's symbolic.

And, voting is symbolic as well. Voting is the communion of the religion of Democracy. Thinkers realize that depending on communion to make your life better is a waste of time and misplaced faith. Don't depend on crackers and grape juice to turn your life around. You have to do it yourself.

Similarly, don't depend on going into a rickety little mobile closet and pushing on some levers to change and save the country. Nope. You are actually going to have to get off your butt and do it yourself. THAT'S why we disparage voting.

"Similarly, don't depend on going into a rickety little mobile closet and pushing on some levers to change and save the country. Nope. You are actually going to have to get off your butt and do it yourself. THAT'S why we disparage voting."

Who says voters do depend soley on their votes changing for the better everything everywhere forever for everyone?

Perhaps it is merely something they do in addition to getting off their butts and doing it themselves; and THAT'S why they disparage nonvoters.

Consider the Kierkegaard quote: "Once you label me, you negate me". There really shouldn't be an "us vs. them" in this discussion. The suggestion that the action of voting is a bad is different from "voters are bad". Perhaps you could instead suggest some reasons you think the action of voting is good.

All sophistoshoe shuffling aside, really I compared the action of disparaging the action of voting to the action of disparaging the inaction of not voting...but as you like...

some reasons the action of voting is good:

-historically, positive political change has been accomplished by it.

-The slightest opportunity squandered, even if the chance of success is slight, is still an opportunity squandered; moreso when the opportunities are rare. Which they are. And they are not likely to proliferate through disuse.

-not voting is an implicit vote for the status quo. If nobody showed up to cast a ballot, the current iteration of TPTB would dust their hands together and say,

"Well, that's that then."

One more incentive to vote that really isn't a reason (technically it's an appeal to your emotions, should you have any): consider the fact that many many many of your forefathers ostensibly fought and died so that you might have the privilege. Not voting, or bothering to go down and spoil your ballot in protest, is like spitting on their memories.

Stepping into a voting booth and giving away your power to anyone is bad for your mental, spiritual, and physical health. Each of us is way more powerful than the institutions we have inherited and often helped to empower. It takes a while to reclaim one's personal power from those parasitical creatures, to become whole again, but it can be done. My suggestion is to avoid the politicians, the clergy, the pill pushers, the jerks with badges, the fools in the courts and jails, the corporate goons, the ponzi con men, and learn to live a life you love - with the goal of healing ourselves and maybe some others.

It. Is. Not. Easy. - but it can be done.

We as individuals are not responsible for other peoples paths on this planet. Celebrate that freedom by not getting enmeshed in their webs of self deception. Don't vote, do something that makes your heart glad instead!

The Second American Revolution, unfolding now in a gerrymandered voting district near you.